Politics and the law do not operate as predictably and rationally as this dogmatist seems to imagine whether or not his own reasoning is as sound as he imagines.

#1 Hugh V McLachlan -

Mary Rolls is as much of a dogmatist as Robin MacCormick, and she seems to imagine whether or not her own reasoning is as sound as she imagines.

Funny you always seem to question the reasoning of those who want to see Scotland independent, and come up with a good pseudo-intellectualism when anyone dares question your reasoning.

Irrespective of the political makeup of this unitary state, it is comprised of four races with their own national and political agendas?

In the post-War period after the UK's economic, political and military decline compounded by the loss of Empire, the idea of a homogenous 'British' race is long gone.

Until recent times, England, the architect of this artificial state has, for obvious demographic reasons, always dominated the Celtic Nations.

Since the introduction of devolved government in Scotland and Wales and, of course, Northern Ireland, this situation no longer exists.

However, there are still crypto-nationalists in all the
Scots and Welsh Unionist parties!

Northern Ireland is certainly a different case but IF the the 30 year violent interregnum has proved one thing: as a result of British Government shenigans,
the Catholic Nationalists AND Protestant Loyalists in Northern Ireland are still more suspicious of Westminster, than of each other!

As the next General Election approaches, and Nationalism becomes even more embedded, especially in Scotland, many of these crypto-nationalists will in
all probability look to re-position themselves
for any further constitutional changes.

For once I find myself in agreement with sm753. The SNP has some kind of intellectual hang-up on the European Union. It is correct that an independent Scotland would not be "expelled" from the EU - because it would never have been a member as an individual entity. But there would be a mass of paperwork to be carried out, including the standard application for membership, which would have to go through the standard procedures. And if the EU did not discriminate against secessionist Slovenia or Slovakia, now full members, it will not do so against Scotland, which on the basis of provisional figures may well be its largest per capita net contributor.

Another of the SNP's illusions is that Scotland would simply take over the UK's international treaty rights. That would be true in respect of certain categories of treaty, but not those in relation to the EU. The oft-quoted two Vienna Conventions on the Succession of States have absolutely no application in this connection, and in any case neither the UK nor the EU is a signatory. Even under customary international law there is no automatic right of succession to plurilateral treaties like those governing the EU.

I have been through all this before, since at the time of Austria's application for membership (consisting of three very brief letters to the EEC, ECSC and Euratom) I was working for the Chancellery and Foreign Ministry, and I had a good deal to do with the compilation of certain documents, including official publications under my own name. The SNP is right off the rails on the issue of the European Union, which we should not forget is only one part of a much larger political Europe, and in the light of prospective future developments is destined to become proportionally even smaller.

#2Sierra Foothills Scot

'Funny you always seem to question the reasoning of those who want to see Scotland independent, and come up with a good pseudo-intellectualism when anyone dares question your reasoning.'

You are deluding yourself.

#1

Hugh - You're right that realpolitik trumps other considerations but in the case of Scotland's membership of the EU, the EU would be very much in favour of Scottish membership. The idea that the EU would not try to keep Scotland as a member, and with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of benefit to Scotland, is absurd.

#3
"In effect, Scotland would be re-applying to join on the same basis as the entrants in Eastern Europe. This would include a commitment to adopting the euro, raising a barrier between us and our main trading partner in the rest of the UK."

sm753 - With the possible exception of Denmark, the only other country apart from the UK that has an opt-out from the euro, the rest of the EU will be in the eurozone. That means an independent Scotland within the EU being a member of a sterling zone of 60 million people or a euro zone of 445 million. Surely would be better being in the euro zone?

#7 Hamish Scott

'The idea that the EU would not try to keep Scotland as a member, and with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of benefit to Scotland, is absurd.'

I have no particular hunches either way on this issue nor I am especially keen to remain a member of the EU. However, absurd judgements are made. Don't forget the American Civil War. Various states said that they had joined the Union voluntarily and now wanted to leave. That seemed to many people (including many British politicians at the time) to be quite reasonable. However, the answer given by Abraham Lincoln was that they would not be allowed to leave and that the union was in perpetuity. That seemed absurd to the confederate states. It seems absurd to me now. However, as we know, that argument won the day.

#2
Sierra Foothills

I have often said that it is unpredictable what would happen if Scotland ever were to become independent. It is very unlikely that things would turn out as the advocates of independence want or expect. However, if there were to be independence, it might turn out to be marvellously successful even if unpredictably so. My argument is not biased irrationally against independence.

Nothing dogmatic about this at all, #1 HVM. If the UK in its present form ceases to be as a result of Scottish independence, then there will be 2 states emerging from one. Logically (and logic does influence such matters from time to time), there will be either 2 successor states, or no successor state. The least likely outcome, irrespective of Britnat cyber bluster, is that rUK will be a successor state with Scotland left in limbo somewhere.

In fact, even if rUK were to be deemed the successor state on its own, there would still need to be negotiations on future rUK budgetary contributions, voting rights, number of MEPs etc. The opportunities this would present for other member states to use such a process to trim the influence of rUK is, I would have thought, likely to be of much greater interest than the principal of whether a newly-independent Scotland should be a member state.

Regardless as to individual qualms about setting a precendent for internal successionist movements to follow, if the independence of Scotland from the rUK were to have been agreed and legislated for in Westminster (i.e. not a UDI situation), it would take a peculiar and highly improbable combination of circumstances for Scotland, a prosperous democracy which has been implementing EU law, which was and wished to remain within the EU, to find itself on the outside.

Someone else made a very good point a few days ago on the situation were Flanders and Wallonia to become sovereign states. Population and scale have nothing at all to do with it - would one or other find itself outside the EU, and if so, could the EU institutions based in Brussels find themselves located outside the EU as a result?

Just because the French might see an opportunity to move the Parliament permanently to Strasbourg doesn't mean that an accommodation wouldn't be reached to keep all parts of Belgium in the EU. As with this example, so with the much cited comparison between Madrid and Scottish accession/rene

4# 4 RACES? plus a British race?
Nonsense.
4 non-soveriegn countries, certainly. A British or UK sovereign country, of course.
And as I have said before, there are no Celtic nations apart from in the minds of those that Lackie Sense.
We are an Anglo-Saxon country, just like the USA, Australian, Canada etc.

#9 Porty Nat,Edinburgh 06/10/2008 12:22:18

'Nothing dogmatic about this at all, #1 HVM. If the UK in its present form ceases to be as a result of Scottish independence, then there will be 2 states emerging from one.'

That might or might not be the interpretation that would prevail. Alternatively, it might be concluded - with regard to the EU - that the state which was a member before Scotland withdrew from the Union remained a member after the withdrawal. We cannot tell in advance what interpretation would prevail in the hypothetical circumstances of Scottish independence. You will need to wait and see. Patience is required – an awful lot of it, perhaps.

#10

"We are an Anglo-Saxon country, just like the USA ..."

Yet again, wrong on almost every count. Where have you been over the past few years, when the results of research into the origins of the inhabitants of these islands have been published? It is now evident that even England (if that's what you really mean by "this country") can hardly be described as an Anglo-Saxon country. You're not by any chance that sad 100% Anglo-Saxon lady who appeared some time ago on television, are you? When last hard from she was seeking to sue the programme producers for exploding her personal origin myth.

As for your suggestion that the USA is an Anglo-Saxon country, it's difficult to know where to begin. Most of the features of the US constitution and of its legal system that were inherited from 17th century England were derived from Norman law and practice, not that of the Anglo-Saxons. Much of the remainder of US culture is the result of the melting pot, with a heavy dash of the Hispanic.

#11 HVM - There's no debate at all that 2 states would emerge from 1 in the event of independence. There would be Scotland, and there would be 'the rest'. The debate is as to whether one, both or neither would then be regarded as successor state(s) for the purposes of EU membership.

As you say, there's no way of knowing which would prevail, although some outcomes are likelier than others. The least likely of those canvassed so far is that rUK is regarded as "the state which was a member before Scotland withdrew from the Union".

You could just as easily contend that Scotland would inherit the membership rights of the UK, with 'the rest' being forced to re-apply for membership. You could even argue, although I wouldn't, that some EU states would be quite pleased to wave Scotland through and make 'the rest' jump through hoops regarding Euro membership etc. It's unlikely, but a mind as open to the improbable but not impossible as yours seems to be [that's intended as a compliment] would surely have to concede it as a possibility.

It's clear that whether one, both or neither is regarded as a successor state, if they are to be 'admitted', then both Scotland and rUK will have to renegotiate certain aspects of membership before becoming fully functioning members in their own right. As such, the optimum position for both Scotland and rUK would be for their representatives to present the joint case that both are successor states to the UK's EU membership, and to negotiate from there the respective budgetary contributions and voting rights. The optimum position for the rest of the EU wuold be to accept that position and to proceed accordingly.

That doesn't mean it will happen, of course, but there are pitfalls for rUK in Scottish independence. Just because some find it convenient to assert that rUK will carry on with the same status in the world post-independence, offers no guarantee that the rest of the world will view matters similarly.

12# I was referring to language, you silly person!
The term Celtic was first coined by Edward Lluyd to classify certain languages with similarities!
With a tiny minority of Celtic speakers in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France (Breton) and England (Cornish), none of them can in reality be called a Celtic country.

#14

We are an Anglo-Saxon country = we speak a language that could (very loosely) be described as being partly of Anglo-Saxon origin. Now who's being silly?

In any case, your assertion is still far from accurate. Of all languages, English is one of the farthest from having a single exclusive origin.

#15 SM753 - The trouble with 'very simple' explanations is that frequently, they're very simply wrong.

The UK was formed by Scotland and England. If Scotland and England cease to share a state, then the UK no longer exists. You can call rUK what you like, but the fact remains that the legal entity which agreed the terms of the UK's membership would have ceased to exist with independence.

I don't think there's any doubt that rUK would retain the seat on the UN security council, simply because that is a consideration based on size and power. However, EU membership is not based on size and power.

We're not talking about UDI, but a negotiated and agreed process creating 2 independent states out of one. As such, it's impossible to say that 'the rest' will take any priority over Scotland in terms of EU membership. You may wish it otherwise, or find it suits your own political prejudices to argue otherwise, but that's the way it is.

"But it is absolutely clear that things like the budget rebate would stay with the UK, while Scottish membership would be on a "new entrant" basis."

Absolutely clear? Anything other than assertion to back up your argument here?

The UK rebate is based on the 4rth resource, or VAT contributions as a share of GNI. The justification given at the time of the Fontainbleau summit for a UK rebate was that it was (then) one of the poorest member states of the EEC, and one which benefitted the least from CAP expenditure, which took up nearly 4/5ths of EEC expenditure.

Scotland pays VAT as well. Given that Scotland has a GNI above the UK average, there's plenty of room for others to contend that the rUK will be contributing proportionately less per head than did the UK, and that the rebate should therefore be subject to renegotiation, along with other terms of membership.

If other states felt sufficiently bloody minded, one of the terms could be that since the UK no longer existed, neither do the Maastricht opt-outs. As such,

[cont]

If other states felt sufficiently bloody minded, one of the terms could be that since the UK no longer existed, neither do the Maastricht opt-outs. As such, if membership was to be dealt with on as close to a seamless basis as possible, both Scotland and rUK would have to agree to join the Euro. Again, I don't think it's likely, but you shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that rUK would be in any kind of a position to dictate terms.

As Nick Ross used to say, don't have nightmares...

#19 - Do I read your posts? Generally, no.

Interesting as a walk through Irish history is, It doesn't tell us anything about the EU membership status of Scotland and rUK post-independence. All it does is show that when independence is legislated for at Westminster, 2 states are created out of one.

If Scotland declared UDI, then it would be very messy. Scotland would be left casting around for international recognition, while the remaining UK would still, at least to begin with, be regarded as the continuing state, even if treaties and responsibilities were amended further down the line.

However, 2 states created out of one, with the agreement of both parties, is likely to result in a very different situation. Even in the unlikely event of rUk being deemed the *only* successor state for EU purposes, it would still require a renegotiation of its terms of membership, some of which may or may not prove acceptable.

There isn't provision for a territory or state to be expelled from the EU. As such, Scotland's 'limbo', were it to come to that, would likely end up as the rUK's 'limbo' also.

In the end, the rest of the EU will want rUK as a major overall contributer, just as they'll want Scotland as a major contributer per capita. That's why a pragmatic acceptance of Scottish independence and a swift accession of Scotland and rUk to their new status is what is most likely to happen.

We can tussle over the details, but with no precedents to follow, it's impossible to say for definite what will happen. Despite the pleasurable nighttime emissions which some unionists seem to get from the notion of Scotland being behind Turkey in the queue while rUk sails on serenely, it's hard to envisage the circumstances where that would result.

It's interesting to see unionism turning on their head in this thread. The unionist argument used to be that Scotland was an 'equal partner' in the Union. Now it appears that if we 'leave' the Union remains as it was. The unionist argument used to be that being in the single-currency British Union meant a market much bigger than Scotland alone in which we can trade on equal terms. Now we are told that being in the single-currency (eurozone) European Union which should mean a market much bigger than even the sterling zone in which we can trade on equal terms. Apparently not, however, as unionists disappear into a black hole of endless possibilities and negativities regrading Scottish independence.

#22

"The difference being that the "UK of South Britain and Northern Ireland" would automatically inherit its former rights and obligations (including things like the rebate and the opt-outs)"

That's fine if you only see the exercise from the point of view of a change of name over the shop. The implications for rUK will be far more wide ranging. It won't, for example, keep the present UK number of MEPs. No great loss, you might think, but there will almost certainly be implications for the number of votes rUK ends up with in the Council of Ministers.

Ultimately, Scottish independence means a diminution of status for rUK, and that's going to be reflected somehow. That means renegotiation of at least some of the current UK status, politically as well as financially - if the rebate continues, it is unlikely to be on the present terms.

"while the *new state* of Scotland would be treated as a new entrant. Possibly fast-tracked, but possibly not."

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The fact is, neither of us can say for definite what will happen.

"You appear to elevate the rest of the EU's financial interests above its political ones."

Hopefully not.

"How keen will they be to make it easy for secessionists?"

Ironically, that's why the rUK/Scotland situation, if it arises, is likely to be treated as a special case. Whatever reservations may be held by other member states, the eventual accommodation will be presented as a one-off - however credible that actually turns out to be.